how to raise the phone bill of the average new jersey family

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IV. THE DANGER OF ASSET SALES SHOWS THE NEED FORREGULATORY VIGILANCENothing highlights the need to maintain regulatory oversight of landline phone service more than the recenthistory of Verizon merging and selling off parts of its network. Its recent record in other states of network sales,particularly in Hawaii and northern New England, has led to disasters for business and residential consumers.The financial malfeasance involved in those sales also emphasizes the need for regulatory vigilance to protectconsumer and taxpayer interests.S 2664, however, will leave state regulators largely helpless in preventing Verizon or other companies fromundermining local telephone services through shoddy asset sales.VERIZON HAS LEFT A TRAIL OF BANKRUPTCIES AND DEFRAUDED SHAREHOLDERSIN THE WAKE OF ITS ASSET SALESNew Jersey policymakers need to plan for the almost inevitable sale by Verizon of its local landline phoneservice, since Verizon has been systematically selling off those assets in states across the country. Beginning in2005, it sold its Hawaii network to the Carlyle Group, followed by the sale of its Vermont, New Hampshireand Maine networks to Fairpoint Communications in spring 2008. This was followed in 2010 by the sale oflandline assets in 14 states (Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,South Carolina, Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and border areas of California) to FrontierCommunications. Verizon also spun off its yellow pages division to the company Idearc in 2006.The Initial Results of this Sell-off Spree Have Been a Disaster. Loaded up with $1.6 billion in debt, HawaiiTelecom went bankrupt in December, 2008. Fairpoint Communications, financing its deal with $2 billion indebt, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March 2010. Idearc, burdened with $9.5 billion in debt byVerizon, filed for bankruptcy in 2009.Shareholders, creditors and ratepayers have condemned Verizon for the financial manipulations behindthese deals. One shareholder group sued Verizon, claiming Verizon’s been consistently engaged in “Enronstyle”skullduggery involving spinoffs of “three such transactions accomplished by Verizon Communications[that were] followed by quick bankruptcy - Hawaiian Telecommunications Inc., Idearc Inc., and FairpointCommunications Inc.” 30 Another group of creditors said Verizon was just looking to get out of a “dyingbusiness,” and removed billions of dollars in assets from these spunoff companies which were left “adrift,burdened with an anchor of debt around its neck, insolvent and without adequate resources to survive.” 31CUSTOMERS SUFFERED MASSIVE QUALITY OF SERVICE PROBLEMSAs for the effects on customers, analyst Karl Bode of DSLReports described it this way:Those companies then of course couldn’t even properly run their networks, much less upgrade them tonext-generation technology. Customers under-served and unwanted by Verizon then wound up withcarriers that were crushed under the weight of Verizon debt. 32For example, when Fairpoint switched from Verizon’s computer systems to its own network, it was plagued withcustomer-service, order-fulfillment and billing problems. 33 The Associated Press noted in 2010 that Fairpoint“has experienced operational problems since buying Verizon Communications’ landline and Internet operationsin Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in 2008.” 34 These included everything from 9-1-1 services sufferingoutages in 2008 35 to residents suffering through DSL service outages that lasted nearly a week in 2009. 36Analyzing customer service in the states where Fairpoint had taken over Verizon properties, a study by theNational Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI), the research arm of state regulatory agencies, declared that,“As of early November 2009, 19 months after the transfer and 9 months after transitioning off of Verizon’soperations support systems, service quality has yet to be restored to pre-merger levels.” 379 How To Raise The Phone Bill Of The Average New Jersey Family: What S 2664 Will Do To NJ Consumers
HOW STRONG REGULATORY SUPERVISION OF LANDLINE ASSET SALES HAVEBENEFITTED CONSUMERS IN OTHER STATESWhile the problems in Fairpoint’s northern New England territory have been bad for consumers, they wouldhave been worse without strong regulatory oversight, both at the time of the sale and through enforcement ofpublic interest standards when the company failed to live up to required regulatory standards.While Fairpoint fought giving consumers rebates for outages they suffered, the existence of those regulatorystandards meant that Fairpoint was required by the bankruptcy court to pay Maine consumers $1.72 perline a month for 12 months 38 as a condition for emerging from bankruptcy, with the Maine Public UtilitiesCommission overseeing the settlement. 39Regulatory Oversight Allowed States to Leverage Economic Development Commitments from Asset Sales:In fact, good oversight in a number of states has allowed state regulators to leverage asset sales by Verizon in waysthat have advanced goals for not only protecting those using landlines but also promoting broader deploymentof advanced technologies and benefitting consumers of all telecommunication products in the state.When Fairpoint first acquired Verizon assets, it agreed as a condition of the sale to meet clear broadbanddeployment conditions. In the case of Maine, this was a promise to extend broadband to 87 percent of itscustomers within five years. Despite the bankruptcy, Fairpoint was able to meet its interim commitment ofdelivering broadband to 83 percent of its Maine customers by the end of 2010, a steep increase from the 68.9percent of Maine customers who had broadband access when Fairpoint bought Verizon’s operations in 2008. 40Other States Have Used Regulatory Authority to Protect Consumers and Deliver Economic Development:Learning the lessons from the Fairpoint regulatory experience, regulators in a number of states overseeing thesale of Verizon landline assets to Frontier in 2010 demanded even tougher conditions.»»In West Virginia, regulators required Frontier to meet a number of conditions, including Making directcapital investments of $30 million during the second half of 2010, $75 million in 2011 (including $12million targeted at service quality), $63 million in 2012 and $63 million in 2013.»»Additional capital investments of at least $48 million to increase broadband deployment in the Verizonservice territory.»»Making broadband service available to no less than 85 percent of the households within Verizon service areasby the fourth year following the close of the sale»»Capping all regulated rates subject to jurisdiction of the Commission for one year after close of thetransaction.»»Requiring Verizon will fund the pension account for employees moving to Frontier, and require Verizon toremain responsible for employees who have retired prior to the sale.In Washington State, state regulators approved the Frontier deal with a wide-ranging set of conditions,including 41 :»»Local residential and business telephone rates cannot increase for three years after the sale.»»Customers will be given credits if service quality fails to meet specific standards, including paying customersan additional $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments.»»A $40 million fund will expand high-speed Internet service in unserved and underserved areas.»»An incentive plan to prevent any decline in service quality and penalties if service quality deteriorates.»»Frontier will offer stand-alone Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services at current rates, terms, and conditionsfor two years.»»Frontier is not permitted to place a cap on download speed or capacity.Each of these regulatory approaches to approving asset sales highlight the gains to states from having effectiveregulatory authority governing local phone systems.S 2664 WILL HARM NEW JERSEY CONSUMERS IN THE EVENT OF A VERIZONASSET SALEIn their report evaluating the pluses and minuses of the regulatory experience of the Verizon asset sales toFairpoint, the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) emphasized the importance of regulators havingthe tools to effectively protect the public interest. To protect consumers and effectively impose conditions oncompanies involved in such asset sales, the NRRI argued:Nathan Newman | Richard Brodsky 10
Page 1 and 2: H O W T O R A I S E T H E P H O N E
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary
Page 5 and 6: »»However, Regulatory Oversight A
Page 8: S 2664 Deregulates the Whole Landli
Page 15 and 16: V. S 2664’S RUSH TO DEREGULATE IS
Page 17 and 18: Similarly, VoIP services provided o
Page 19 and 20: APPENDIXLOW-INCOME LIFELINE TELEPHO
Page 21 and 22: RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE RATES IN SAMP
Page 23 and 24: BROADBAND SPEED DOWNLOADS GREATER T
Page 25 and 26: ENDNOTES1. Reference Book of Rates,
Page 28: 220 Fifth Ave., 2nd Floor | New Yor

how to raise the phone bill of the average new jersey family

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?